John McGinn

[PeterWithesShin]

Well it isn't as that was only part of what I said. I was simply pointing out with that sentence that it's not a new phenomenon that top clubs and their players play a lot of games.

[paul_e]

Well it isn't as that was only part of what I said. I was simply pointing out with that sentence that it's not a new phenomenon that top clubs and their players play a lot of games.

No, but the pressure (physically and mentally) on the players as a result is far higher. I wasn't ignoring the rest I just think the context is different enough for it to not really matter. In much the same way L1 and L2 clubs often play 55-60 games in a season with smaller squads and much poorer facilities but you don't really hear of it as a problem at that level so often (as I mentioned though I would reduce the size of those leagues as well).

I do understand the financial arguments against reducing the amount of games for smaller sides but I'd rather see that offset by higher prize money/solidarity payments because I think in the long term the sport would benefit.

[Hookeysmith]

I do not use twitter

Can someone post the image of SJM as a kid with the Champs league ball and Tuesday night that is meant to be circulating

[PeterWithesShin]

https://x.com/jmcginn7/status/1836137769405682081

[Somniloquism]

It seems all his growth went into the arse area and not the height.

[chrisw1]

This isn't about pandering to rich clubs and any loss of revenue that comes from reducing the number of games would need to be offset with better redistribution of wealth down the pyramid but, for me, what it would do is improve the quality of games and improve player welfare. I know it's easy to see footballers as pampered millionaires who only do a few hours a day in training but in comparison to most other sports they are massively overloaded (I have the same concern for Cricket by the way).

I think it is about pandering to rich clubs.  They want to have their cake and eat it.  They want the summer tours, the expanded Champions League, the club world cup etc.  They could have pushed against the increased CL if they'd really wanted to, rejected the idea of the club world cup if they really wanted to.  But they'd rather squeeze domestic fixtures because they make less money.   

[paul_e]

This isn't about pandering to rich clubs and any loss of revenue that comes from reducing the number of games would need to be offset with better redistribution of wealth down the pyramid but, for me, what it would do is improve the quality of games and improve player welfare. I know it's easy to see footballers as pampered millionaires who only do a few hours a day in training but in comparison to most other sports they are massively overloaded (I have the same concern for Cricket by the way).

I think it is about pandering to rich clubs.  They want to have their cake and eat it.  They want the summer tours, the expanded Champions League, the club world cup etc.  They could have pushed against the increased CL if they'd really wanted to, rejected the idea of the club world cup if they really wanted to.  But they'd rather squeeze domestic fixtures because they make less money.

My post, with my ideas to improve the game in the long term isn't pandering to the big clubs. There are too many games being played and we need to address it and that includes, as I mentioned, doing away with pointless matches like the club world cup and I don't like the preseason tournaments.

[chrisw1]

I agree with the general principle, but the last thing that should be cut is domestic competitions and games, particularly when they have just added 2 games to the CL.  The clubs could have fought that and they did not, they lapped it up.

When Leicester and Brighton are moaning about too many games then it may be time to look at the domestic calendar.  But if it's just the privileged few in the CL, well, manage your multi billion-pound squads better.  Don't vote for increasing the cash cow European games.  Don't go on world tours.  And if it means you can't hoover up every single domestic trophy, then great.

[Sexual Ealing]

I agree with the general principle, but the last thing that should be cut is domestic competitions and games, particularly when they have just added 2 games to the CL.  The clubs could have fought that and they did not, they lapped it up.

When Leicester and Brighton are moaning about too many games then it may be time to look at the domestic calendar.  But if it's just the privileged few in the CL, well, manage your multi billion-pound squads better.  Don't vote for increasing the cash cow European games.  Don't go on world tours.  And if it means you can't hoover up every single domestic trophy, then great.

All of this.

[PeterWithesShin]

20/21, 21/22 and 22/23 we played 41 or 42 games, because we weren't very good. Now it's a fair chunk more as we're at the top table, fewer domestic games wouldn't have benefited us when we were crap, in fact less income would make it harder to close the gap, so it does mainly favour the 'bigger' clubs.

Tours and CWC are ridiculous, but clubs want them so as they can pay players obscene wages. Those players then are playing too much, but don't want less money but more money. So clubs go on tours etc.

As I said earlier, it's a vicious circle now.

[LeeB]

I agree with the general principle, but the last thing that should be cut is domestic competitions and games, particularly when they have just added 2 games to the CL.  The clubs could have fought that and they did not, they lapped it up.

When Leicester and Brighton are moaning about too many games then it may be time to look at the domestic calendar.  But if it's just the privileged few in the CL, well, manage your multi billion-pound squads better.  Don't vote for increasing the cash cow European games.  Don't go on world tours.  And if it means you can't hoover up every single domestic trophy, then great.

I think both things can be right at the same time, there's too much football and at the same time, stop fucking whingeing and manage your squad,.

[chrisw1]

20/21, 21/22 and 22/23 we played 41 or 42 games, because we weren't very good. Now it's a fair chunk more as we're at the top table, fewer domestic games wouldn't have benefited us when we were crap, in fact less income would make it harder to close the gap, so it does mainly favour the 'bigger' clubs.

Tours and CWC are ridiculous, but clubs want them so as they can pay players obscene wages. Those players then are playing too much, but don't want less money but more money. So clubs go on tours etc.

As I said earlier, it's a vicious circle now.

It may be a vicious circle, but it's entirely in the hands of the wealthy clubs to break that, should they wish to.  It's like moaning that you're too fat whilst ordering another supersized MacDonald's meal.

[Dave]

As for the club World Cup and all the internationals, nobody really cares do they?

The Club World Cup is just FIFA wanting some of UEFA's lovely money, but international football is crucial for the game.

Unless you're the FA of one of the bigger footballing countries with massive broadcasting and sponsorship arrangements, international matches are basically where you get the money that sustains your domestic game.

Fewer internationals would definitely be a way to screw over the little guy just to benefit the richest.

[Drummond]

There are too many internationals.

The club World Cup is completely unnecessary.

FIFA want more of the pie, UEFA want more of the pie, the clubs do, the players do, National associations do.

I think it's a bit rich of players earning in excess of £100k per WEEK, to start complaining and threatening strikes, they need to talk to their clubs, and agree on how many games they'll play. They don't have to play and be available.

Historically, the Premier League had more teams, so more games, there were some internationals, and nobody complained. Part of it is that the marketing and publicity and press conferences etc has grown so much.

These players train for a couple of hours a day, and then have plenty of downtime. It's up to clubs and managers to get the workload right.

As for the club World Cup and all the internationals, nobody really cares do they?

but that's really difficult to do. Imagine the reaction on here if the team tomorrow sees Tielemans, Konsa, Rogers, Martinez and Watkins a 'break' after a tough european match? Fans just about accept that sort of weakening of the team in domestic cups but do it in Europe or the league and people lose their shit if the team doesn't win.

I agree about the club world cup, I'd get rid of the european super cup and the charity shield as well, and I agree that there are far too many internationals and, more importantly, international windows.

This isn't about pandering to rich clubs and any loss of revenue that comes from reducing the number of games would need to be offset with better redistribution of wealth down the pyramid but, for me, what it would do is improve the quality of games and improve player welfare. I know it's easy to see footballers as pampered millionaires who only do a few hours a day in training but in comparison to most other sports they are massively overloaded (I have the same concern for Cricket by the way).

It's not hard though. We have the League Cup next week, perfect time to change it a bit. We could, theoretically go with this.

                        Gauci

Nedeljkovic Carlos Swinkels/Mings? Maatsen

               Barkley    Young

Bailey           Buendia            Philogene
                      Duran

That's a rest for everyone else. The bench would look pretty good mind you!

This weekend, we could easily put Barkley, Maatsen, Bailey or Philogene and Carlos in without significantly weakening us. That's what teams should be doing, but won't, because everyone demands success without any understanding.

[paul_e]

I agree with the general principle, but the last thing that should be cut is domestic competitions and games, particularly when they have just added 2 games to the CL.  The clubs could have fought that and they did not, they lapped it up.

When Leicester and Brighton are moaning about too many games then it may be time to look at the domestic calendar.  But if it's just the privileged few in the CL, well, manage your multi billion-pound squads better.  Don't vote for increasing the cash cow European games.  Don't go on world tours.  And if it means you can't hoover up every single domestic trophy, then great.

I think both things can be right at the same time, there's too much football and at the same time, stop fucking whingeing and manage your squad,.

Yep, exactly.

Whatever happens the richest clubs come out best as is already the case, but reduced games makes it more viable to go with a smaller squad and reduces the benefit of having 25 full international players as your squad.

Taking the European teams out of the league cup and leaving the Europa League as the prize improves that tournament immensely.

Making the 2nd tier smaller again reduces the impact of the relegated teams having bigger squads.

Couple it all with club trained players being required in league match day squads and you're well on the way to a more balanced system that is less dominated by huge spending.